Opinion
23 Civ. 10356 (KPF)
01-03-2024
ORDER
KATHERINE POLK FAILLA, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of the parties' submissions in connection with the hearing scheduled in this matter for January 5, 2024. (Dkt. #8-12). The Court has reviewed these submissions, and notes the differing views of the parties with respect to the degree of documentation that must be provided before transportation services are entitled to reimbursement.
The Court recognizes that several of its sister courts have weighed in on this issue. See generally Abrams v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 20 Civ. 5085 (JPO), 2022 WL 523455 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 22, 2022); Davis v. Banks, No. 22 Civ. 8184 (JMF), 2023 WL 5917659 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2023); Donohue v. Banks, No. 22 Civ. 8998 (JPC), 2023 WL 6386014 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2023). In this case, however, it appears that the Court need not resolve any open questions with respect to the appropriate legal standard regarding the degree of documentation required for the payment of transportation expenses, as Plaintiffs have represented in their reply submission that they have already provided the required documentation for each applicable Student-Plaintiff. (Dkt. #12 (Pl. Reply) at 3 n.1 (“Plaintiffs did provide transportation agreements and invoices to DOE for M.C. on July 20, 2023, and for S.C. and A.C. on August 9, 2023.”)).
Accordingly, and without at this time reaching the question of whether such documentation is necessary for payment of transportation expenses, the Court directs counsel for Plaintiffs to re-transmit the aforementioned documentation to counsel for Defendants, and to the Court. Counsel may provide this material under seal, viewable to the Court and parties only. In light of the upcoming hearing, counsel shall transmit this information on or before January 3, 2024, at 11:59 p.m.
SO ORDERED.